I wonder if LEGO themselves have ever done life testing of the bricks? I know that I have some bricks from my childhood that have loosened over time, though I believe it was mostly the clear plastic blocks, so the composition of the plastic would possibly be the reason...

This is actually really interesting, and if LEGO haven't already done it could have an actual impact on their product lines. Once they know what the grip strength and durability of ABS is, they can start testing bricks made from other materials and see how they compare, potentially being able to switch to cheaper raw materials in the long run

If anything, I would think the act of disassembly is what wears bricks most in real-world usage -- straight down pushing seems a lot less stressful than random pulling/twisting/bending, not to mention stresses acquired during play time with completed models.

Also, I would have been really interested in the decade vintage comparisons.

When I was a young kid, we had 3 questions: Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?...and how many times can you put together Lego pieces?

This is cool because it's so dorky and I could I see myself doing it on a bet.

I wonder if LEGO themselves have ever done life testing of the bricks? I know that I have some bricks from my childhood that have loosened over time, though I believe it was mostly the clear plastic blocks, so the composition of the plastic would possibly be the reason...

I would almost certainly think they have. I still have my first Lego (which was my first real toy) that my parents bought me in 1987. Admittedly, it sets on a bookshelf now, but it has aged remarkably well from the colors to the pieces clutching. I can imagine few plastic things with that level precision having survived as well.

I would almost certainly think they have. I still have my first Lego (which was my first real toy) that my parents bought me in 1987. Admittedly, it sets on a bookshelf now, but it has aged remarkably well from the colors to the pieces clutching. I can imagine few plastic things with that level precision having survived as well.

You make me feel old, my NEWEST lego is from about 1987...

Just an aside for LEGO nostalgia, does everyone know about http://www.peeron.com and http://www.brickset.com? I've been slowly accumulating all the lost manuals from my childhood so that I can give them to my son when he is slightly older...

I would almost certainly think they have. I still have my first Lego (which was my first real toy) that my parents bought me in 1987. Admittedly, it sets on a bookshelf now, but it has aged remarkably well from the colors to the pieces clutching. I can imagine few plastic things with that level precision having survived as well.

You make me feel old, my NEWEST lego is from about 1987...

The only really good set that has come out since then was when they very briefly resurrected the classic Pirates line before killing it and converting it to Pirates of the Caribbean with boats you barely built.Though I think you can still buy the Ship of the Line, but not Brickbeard's Bounty

I didn't like the way the blocks were being assembled by the motion of the rotation; it's not a natural way to put LEGO bricks together. Pushing down in a straight matter makes more sense and maybe it's going to wear the bricks differently.

The rotational movement would certainly have led to asymmetric forces and possibly accelerated the wear. The next step is to get some microscopy to see if there's a difference in deformation of the far and near posts.

I didn't like the way the blocks were being assembled by the motion of the rotation; it's not a natural way to put LEGO bricks together. Pushing down in a straight matter makes more sense and maybe it's going to wear the bricks differently.

The rotational movement would certainly have led to asymmetric forces and possibly accelerated the wear. The next step is to get some microscopy to see if there's a difference in deformation of the far and near posts.

That's not really necessary for a basic comparative analysis, which is what this was intended to be. As long as you have a consistant method which will eventually give a result and will wear each brick the same way it doesn't really matter how long a single brick lasts, it's the consistency that matters

I didn't like the way the blocks were being assembled by the motion of the rotation; it's not a natural way to put LEGO bricks together. Pushing down in a straight matter makes more sense and maybe it's going to wear the bricks differently.

The rotational movement would certainly have led to asymmetric forces and possibly accelerated the wear. The next step is to get some microscopy to see if there's a difference in deformation of the far and near posts.

You might be right about asymmetry, however the way I assemble/disassemble Legos is far closer to how that machine works (that is at an angle) than straight up and down. To me, that's a pretty fair approximation.

I would almost certainly think they have. I still have my first Lego (which was my first real toy) that my parents bought me in 1987. Admittedly, it sets on a bookshelf now, but it has aged remarkably well from the colors to the pieces clutching. I can imagine few plastic things with that level precision having survived as well.

You make me feel old, my NEWEST lego is from about 1987...

The only really good set that has come out since then was when they very briefly resurrected the classic Pirates line before killing it and converting it to Pirates of the Caribbean with boats you barely built.Though I think you can still buy the Ship of the Line, but not Brickbeard's Bounty

All of their Ultimate Collectors line is pretty amazing. Comes with an equivalent price tag, but still...

I haven't read the article it references, but the cost of petrolium as an argument is obviously bunk. Take a LEGO Starwars set, you're paying for the franchise, the advertisements and the design before the cost of the material begins to figure in.

---

LEGO has robots that sits and plugs and unplugs LEGO bricks all day. I've seen a documentary about it (one of those 10-15 minute thingies they like to put on TV to fill out time). I can't remember the number of plugs/unplugs they quoted, but the general point to it was that LEGO bricks are very durable (otherwise LEGO probably wouldn't have produced the documentary ).

edit:

Since the guy only tested one brick, it's a pity he tested a 40 year old one.

Couldn't he at least test a current one to come to some sort of conclusion? Sort of "LEGO bricks are better now" or "LEGO bricks are exactly the same over 40 years", just something.

I haven't read the article it references, but the cost of petrolium as an argument is obviously bunk. Take a LEGO Starwars set, you're paying for the franchise, the advertisements and the design before the cost of the material begins to figure in.

its all a factor. they could go cheaper on any one element to reduce price.

I haven't read the article it references, but the cost of petrolium as an argument is obviously bunk. Take a LEGO Starwars set, you're paying for the franchise, the advertisements and the design before the cost of the material begins to figure in.

its all a factor. they could go cheaper on any one element to reduce price.

"Why"?.. Because people still buy them regardless? Apparently the market can bear a lot. Especially for that sweet, sweet LEGO Executor-class super star destroyer.

Only slightly related to the article, but I'm really sick of this "Why are LEGO so expensive?" crap. Current sets are generally in the $0.10 - $0.15 per brick range -- and yes, that might be considered expensive, especially if you're comparing a tiny stud to a large 2x8 brick or 10x6 plate.

But compared to "when I was a kid", which is the usual argument, they're not more expensive. They're cheaper. The reality is that people just do not recall how much stuff cost when they were kids, especially toys, because by and large they weren't paying for it.

I've rekindled my love of LEGOs in the past few weeks, in large part because my 7 yr old daughter is having a LEGO themed birthday party. I'd long ago pulled out most of my bricks for my kids to play with, but there were still a few sets in storage. One of the sets I found was the FX Star Patroller, in the original box, which still had the price tag on it. A 239 piece set with a "suggested retail price" of $21.99, but marked down to a mere $17.99 at Service Merchandise in 1985.

And how much does a brand new set cost? Well, a random set I found on Amazon is 213 pieces, list price of $25 and sale price of $19.

So pretty much the same price for the same size set. And $20 in 1985 was worth quite a bit more than $20 in 2013.

LEGO isn't more expensive... it's cheaper. And I still think it's one of the best and cheapest toys you can buy for your kid.

A different but related question might be how much does the plastic flow in the assembled condition. It is common for plastics to creep under stress. His assemble/disassemble stress might take longer in normal use to cause clutch force reduction than plastic flow of an assembly left on the shelf.

I'm not an expert on Lego, but I'm certain the average person will not be able to connect bricks together 37,112 times. Not because a person cannot physically do it, but because the average person does not play with Lego enough to accomplish that feat before the bricks become brittle with age and crack and/or break preventing you from ever wearing out your bricks with use. This man deserves an Ig Nobel prize for his discovery though.

I haven't read the article it references, but the cost of petrolium as an argument is obviously bunk. Take a LEGO Starwars set, you're paying for the franchise, the advertisements and the design before the cost of the material begins to figure in.

its all a factor. they could go cheaper on any one element to reduce price.

Not in the context I provided. You might as well look at the price of sugar when figuring out why Coca Cola costs 10 times as much as generic.

I'm not an expert on Lego, but I'm certain the average person will not be able to connect bricks together 37,112 times. Not because a person cannot physically do it, but because the average person does not play with Lego enough to accomplish that feat before the bricks become brittle with age and crack and/or break preventing you from ever wearing out your bricks with use. This man deserves an Ig Nobel prize for his discovery though.

Very interesting and geeky for sure. While I no longer have my legos from the 70's and 80's I still have ALL the original manuals for them. I wonder if they worth anything: Classic Space, Blacktron and a few Space Police manuals. Anyone know where I can find out?

About the pricing of lego: There is now a competitor that uses the same bricks and is from China or so, and their prices are about 50% lower. So, Lego is overpriced, however they of course do a lot of research in creating new sets etc. Although their competitor has some nice stuff that you don't see in Lego, like army sets.

About the pricing of lego: There is now a competitor that uses the same bricks and is from China or so, and their prices are about 50% lower. So, Lego is overpriced, however they of course do a lot of research in creating new sets etc. Although their competitor has some nice stuff that you don't see in Lego, like army sets.

There has been a brick compatible competitor for LEGO for decades called megabloks. They are significantly cheaper, and not nearly as desirable due to consistency, quality, and longevity issues. I really don't think LEGO inc would consider another cheap knock off as a real competitor. They have a loyal customer base for whom the higher price is not an issue. LEGO is one of the only brands to whom I would consider myself loyal regardless of price...though I am now buying for my children.

About the pricing of lego: There is now a competitor that uses the same bricks and is from China or so, and their prices are about 50% lower. So, Lego is overpriced, however they of course do a lot of research in creating new sets etc. Although their competitor has some nice stuff that you don't see in Lego, like army sets.

Except that they don't use the same bricks... they use stuff that looks the same at first glance. But the molds are cheaper and not as exact, the material they use is cheaper and crappier, they don't have the same QA process, etc.

The end result is bricks that don't fit together well with each other, much less with LEGO (or Mega Bloks) and crap out within the life of the set.

While sifting through my old LEGO I've found a couple of pieces that were broken (literally, I've found two so far... out of a couple thousand or so). And I have no clue what the hell I did to make that happen... they must've been stepped on (one was a plate) or had a tool applied to them. The earliest set I can find is the Moon Landing one and I have most, if not all, of those pieces and they're all still working -- including the weird arm joints and wheels.